Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP) NewsFlash Federal judge rules that the NSA can spy on you all it wants, because shut up and watch Duck Dynasty, that's why   (wtop.com) divider line 549
    More: NewsFlash, NSA, federal judges, phone surveillance  
•       •       •

14894 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2013 at 12:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

549 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-27 01:23:03 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?


You know.
Don't you?
 
2013-12-27 01:23:40 PM  

neversubmit: Not only will you get over it, you will learn to love Big Brother.


I don't care if duck dynasty is done for I'm still not watching that show.
 
2013-12-27 01:23:41 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." ―Padmé Amidala


So our country will meet it's end at the hands of a whiny jerkass? Who the hell would ever give Ted Cruz that much power???
 
2013-12-27 01:24:01 PM  
FTA:  "In ruling, the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred. "

Two comments...

1 - Why are we always fighting the last battle?

2 - The FBI and other organizations had everything they needed to connect the dots without communications metadata. A big farking red flag came from one of the flight schools who called to mention a student who was only interested in hand flying, not take off or landing - you know, two of the more critical phases of flight and that are generally considered to be important parts of a successful flight.

The collection of the communication metadata is useless if it is not analysed properly. The trouble is that the likelihood of that is low but the probability of abuse is high.
 
2013-12-27 01:24:07 PM  
I see that he copypasta'd from the Bush administration playbook.

pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-12-27 01:24:23 PM  

snocone: browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.

I don't recall the "terrorists" saying that.
I do recall our "elected officials" saying that, eh?


And you'll note who is implementing this solution, right?
 
2013-12-27 01:24:42 PM  

justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.


Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:13 PM  
America is a fascism.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:20 PM  

whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP



Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:36 PM  
I think wat bothers me MOST is the fact that this "broad" surveillance really seems like the LEAST efficient way to accomplishing their goals.

If you have far more data than you could ever hope to sniff through.... why continue collecting shiat you will never be capable of vetting?

I am not a political guy... I have my booze, tv, steam account and enough money <just> to pay bills and rent... Typical compliant happy citizen... but even I say WTF?

Wouldnt a government need this type of collection if they were trying to spot signs of revolution in their people?
 
2013-12-27 01:25:44 PM  
Art?

Life?

I don't know, but I do know Congress and The Presidency were "Reality TV" before reality TV was cool.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:47 PM  

Starshines: This is a good thing.  The sooner there is a circuit split the sooner this issue goes to the Supreme Court.

/Thank God for Edward Snowden.


And the sooner we have SCOTUS rule the Fourth Amendment no longer exists.
 
2013-12-27 01:25:53 PM  

whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Excellent retort.
 
2013-12-27 01:26:07 PM  
Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap? Guess not.
 
2013-12-27 01:26:17 PM  

genner: neversubmit: Not only will you get over it, you will learn to love Big Brother.

I don't care if duck dynasty is done for I'm still not watching that show.


But do we actually know it's "done for?" They just cleaned up over Christmas despite the bad publicity.
 
2013-12-27 01:26:38 PM  
Does this mean I can call the NSA up and find out who keeps calling me and hanging up?
 
2013-12-27 01:26:53 PM  

whidbey: justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.

Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.


Really?  I figured that one was accurate.  Then again, "You can't tell a book by its cover," JK Rowling....about Phil Robertson.
 
2013-12-27 01:27:07 PM  

quizzical: TFA:   Pauley said the fact that the ACLU would never have learned about an order authorizing collection of telephony metadata related to its telephone numbers but for Snowden's disclosures added "another level of absurdity in this case."
"It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.

The government might have been doing something illegal, but because it was illegal for Snowden to reveal that fact, , no one can take action to investigate the possible illegality of the government's actions?  Bullshiat.


Geese and ganders.
 
2013-12-27 01:27:08 PM  

GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.


It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,
 
2013-12-27 01:27:12 PM  

ariseatex: I miss the days when my first thought when seeing "NSA" was "No Strings Attached."


I know what you mean.

/Hoping for some NSA action this weekend
 
2013-12-27 01:27:53 PM  

xenophon10k: snocone: browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.

I don't recall the "terrorists" saying that.
I do recall our "elected officials" saying that, eh?

And you'll note who is implementing this solution, right?


As I recall, the "terrorists" actually said they and The American Citizens have the same enemy.
 
2013-12-27 01:28:19 PM  
David Simon made the point earlier this year that this has been done for years on a much smaller scale and that it has always been OK'd by the courts. What we're talking about here is the metadata. Who called whom and for how long. This isn't about the contents of the communications.

Basically, the idea is that the metadata can not be considered private because it's something that you are sharing with a third party, the telephone companies. How this previously came up was with things like drug investigations. So, say the police knew that some drug dealer guy was using his cell phone in some specific area. They would get all the metadata that bounced off the closest cell tower in some given time. That included the metadata of you and me and any other law abiding citizens who happened to be in the area. It was ruled that it was OK for the police to collect the metadata in these situations.

So, that was just expanded to the entire nation, given the scope of the threat of possible terror attacks.

I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just saying what I think is.
 
2013-12-27 01:28:36 PM  

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

Russ Feingold Patriot Act

Speech. Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
I may not have agreed with Feingold  on everything but he at least tried to do  the job of a Senator and represent the interests of the American people
 
2013-12-27 01:28:37 PM  
It will go to SCOTUS and get squashed. There is no way, no way that you can say that tracking everyones phone records is "a national defense" Its a violation of our rights to privacy, and that is it. Agreeing with this stupid ass ruling is like saying that "some guy in a brown house was a terrorist, so we have to search all brown houses without warrants" Because derp.

/What the hell has happened in this country that we have become so pussified that we are willing to give up our individual rights? It's been proven that the government will time and time again take away your "rights" when it suits their political end. Look at WW2, the japanese americans were thrown in jail for just being japanese. They had 0 rights, just "right this way!: Into the internment camps. Look at black civil rights, slavery, look at womans suffrage. I have news for you...you don't have "god given rights" you have rights given by the government, and if they can take them away at will, they aren't rights, they are "privileges". Your home is no longer your castle, they can make you sell it to serve the greater good "eminent domain" they have "border checkpoints" where they unlawfully make you state if you are a citizen or not, there are cities that do "stop and frisk" with no other reason that they can be "suspect" of you, whatever that means. I guess it means if you are black or hispanic. Its a sad day in America when a FEDERAL judge says that the right to privacy is outweighed by "the war on terror".

/gets a drink.
 
2013-12-27 01:29:03 PM  

snocone: Sim Tree: snocone: master_dman: I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.

Who ya gonna call?

Why, the Ghostbusters, of course.

And then the NSA can listen in.

I'm wanting the StaPuft guy for President.


If Christie wins, you'll get your wish.
 
2013-12-27 01:29:29 PM  

Literally Addicted: snocone: Sim Tree: snocone: master_dman: I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.

Who ya gonna call?

Why, the Ghostbusters, of course.

And then the NSA can listen in.

I'm wanting the StaPuft guy for President.

If Christie wins, you'll get your wish.


Fat Chance
 
2013-12-27 01:29:43 PM  

whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,


To be offended, you would have to have worth to me.  Your use of a played out sarcastic inference that the argument of another person is below the ability to communicate tells me that you aren't worth caring about because you have nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond snide insults.

Good day.
 
2013-12-27 01:29:53 PM  

Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.



Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.
 
2013-12-27 01:31:05 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: It will go to SCOTUS and get squashed. There is no way, no way that you can say that tracking everyones phone records is "a national defense" Its a violation of our rights to privacy, and that is it. Agreeing with this stupid ass ruling is like saying that "some guy in a brown house was a terrorist, so we have to search all brown houses without warrants" Because derp.

/What the hell has happened in this country that we have become so pussified that we are willing to give up our individual rights? It's been proven that the government will time and time again take away your "rights" when it suits their political end. Look at WW2, the japanese americans were thrown in jail for just being japanese. They had 0 rights, just "right this way!: Into the internment camps. Look at black civil rights, slavery, look at womans suffrage. I have news for you...you don't have "god given rights" you have rights given by the government, and if they can take them away at will, they aren't rights, they are "privileges". Your home is no longer your castle, they can make you sell it to serve the greater good "eminent domain" they have "border checkpoints" where they unlawfully make you state if you are a citizen or not, there are cities that do "stop and frisk" with no other reason that they can be "suspect" of you, whatever that means. I guess it means if you are black or hispanic. Its a sad day in America when a FEDERAL judge says that the right to privacy is outweighed by "the war on terror".

/gets a drink.


EASY!
A entire generation of fools outsourced the security.
Guess what..
 
2013-12-27 01:31:22 PM  

oh_please: Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap? Guess not.


Look, if you want to get Obamacare passed and keep it, you can't let a few things like your other campaign promises get in the way.  Even if you had a complicit Congress for 2 years of your term, and since then have managed all manner of programs against the Republican grain.

He hasn't even condemned the NSA's use of these programs.

My liberal mother believes that it is because once you are president you learn that you don't have the control you thought you'd have.  In other words, presidents can't affect policy on some big things.  Unless they are Republican, then everything is their fault.
 
2013-12-27 01:31:30 PM  

I_C_Weener: whidbey: justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.

Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.

Really?  I figured that one was accurate.  Then again, "You can't tell a book by its cover," JK Rowling....about Phil Robertson.


Wikiquote says "This expression seems to have mutated over time" and apparently he did say most of it in a "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor" so perhaps I am mis-speaking a bit.
 
2013-12-27 01:31:54 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Or, in other words, fark your right to privacy, and fark your right not to have non warrant wire tapping done to your phone. What's next? Warrentless searches of my car? My home? Arrests without probable cause? Jail terms without due process and legal representation?

/welcome to the new world, where the terrorists have won, and we not only bend over to suck their dicks, but we give up our rights as well


No overreaction here, lemme tell ya.
 
2013-12-27 01:32:31 PM  

GORDON: whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,

To be offended, you would have to have worth to me.  Your use of a played out sarcastic inference that the argument of another person is below the ability to communicate tells me that you aren't worth caring about because you have nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond snide insults.

Good day.


OK, fine. Agree with the derper. I don't care. Just pointing out what you're defending.
 
2013-12-27 01:32:43 PM  
The judge said the phone collection program only works because it collects everything.

So guilty until proven innocent?
 
2013-12-27 01:33:16 PM  
I thought there are secret courts to decide these issues.
 
2013-12-27 01:33:32 PM  

Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.


It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?
 
2013-12-27 01:33:32 PM  

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-27 01:33:33 PM  

whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,

To be offended, you would have to have worth to me.  Your use of a played out sarcastic inference that the argument of another person is below the ability to communicate tells me that you aren't worth caring about because you have nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond snide insults.

Good day.

OK, fine. Agree with the derper. I don't care. Just pointing out what you're defending.


I said good day.
 
2013-12-27 01:34:02 PM  

Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


When the problems derived from President Bush's agenda stop happening, I will stop assigning blame to his administration.

Just because a new CEO is in charge of the factory, doesn't mean that the machines (which were neglected to boost production for the last 20 quarters) magically reset themselves to brand new condition. Sometimes, crap takes time to fix.
 
2013-12-27 01:34:09 PM  

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.

Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.

Really?  I figured that one was accurate.  Then again, "You can't tell a book by its cover," JK Rowling....about Phil Robertson.

Wikiquote says "This expression seems to have mutated over time" and apparently he did say most of it in a "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor" so perhaps I am mis-speaking a bit.


The closest anyone has put the quote to Franklin is in an anthology he edited and published but contained none of his own writings.
 
2013-12-27 01:34:44 PM  
"Because without all the data points, the government cannot be certain it connected the pertinent ones," he said. "Here, there is no way for the government to know which particle of telephony metadata will lead to useful counterterrorism information. When that is the case, courts routinely authorize large-scale collections of information, even if most of it will not directly bear on the investigation."

---
For one that's *any* police investigation, not just terrorism.  There is always the risk that the police won't have all the data they need to connect all the dots.  Yet somehow the courts have still found that warrants are needed.

Secondly, the highlighted words are key here: The *Courts* authorize wide scale surveillance.  It is done under supervision of a neutral third party that is not tied to the investigation.  It is, to wit, the exact polar opposite of what the NSA is currently doing.
 
2013-12-27 01:34:54 PM  
couldn't care less, the people get exactly what they deserve.
Had they deserved differently, they would have chosen that when they elect their rich masters.

the NSA has no ability, money or manpower to give a shiat about your stupid conversations
..billions of them
..every minute of every day

but if you want to start farking with the process
start using key words and phrases, start a fake terrorist website
that is, if you want to put yer money where yer mouth is
 
2013-12-27 01:35:06 PM  
Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.
 
2013-12-27 01:35:07 PM  
The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.
 
2013-12-27 01:35:25 PM  

I_C_Weener: oh_please: Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap? Guess not.

Look, if you want to get Obamacare passed and keep it, you can't let a few things like your other campaign promises get in the way.  Even if you had a complicit Congress for 2 years of your term, and since then have managed all manner of programs against the Republican grain.

He hasn't even condemned the NSA's use of these programs.

My liberal mother believes that it is because once you are president you learn that you don't have the control you thought you'd have.  In other words, presidents can't affect policy on some big things.  Unless they are Republican, then everything is their fault.


I love hearing family secrets. Also, Republicans appear to have more control because they already fall lock-step into hardliner policy. Democrats often cave to hardliners because let's face it, the hardliners already have the upper hand in government.

But you probably don't believe that. You should have listened to your mother.
 
2013-12-27 01:36:12 PM  
Gubment does what gubment wants. Big surprise.
 
2013-12-27 01:36:33 PM  

GORDON: whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he I scircumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,

To be offended, you would have to have worth to me.  Your use of a played out sarcastic inference that the argument of another person is below the ability to communicate tells me that you aren't worth caring about because you have nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond snide insults.

Good day.

OK, fine. Agree with the derper. I don't care. Just pointing out what you're defending.

I said good day.


I said you come off agreeing with that dipshiat. Is that what you want?
 
2013-12-27 01:36:39 PM  
This is an issue nobody seems to like, it's like red light cameras, but yet it keeps getting forced on us. This is one of those times where both party's leaders come together to fark over the entire citizenry. There's plenty of legitimately partisan issues out there but this ain't one of them.
 
2013-12-27 01:36:50 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.

When the problems derived from President Bush's agenda stop happening, I will stop assigning blame to his administration.

Just because a new CEO is in charge of the factory, doesn't mean that the machines (which were neglected to boost production for the last 20 quarters) magically reset themselves to brand new condition. Sometimes, crap takes time to fix.


Just who do you think is defending the government's case in court right now? John Ashcroft? You can live in denial all you want, I guess.
 
2013-12-27 01:37:01 PM  

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: justtray: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

What imaginary liberty are you giving up?

Jesus christ you people are stupid. Get a grip on reality.

Not to mention that Franklin's "quote" isn't actually one of his quotes, but someone else made it up later.

Really?  I figured that one was accurate.  Then again, "You can't tell a book by its cover," JK Rowling....about Phil Robertson.

Wikiquote says "This expression seems to have mutated over time" and apparently he did say most of it in a "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor" so perhaps I am mis-speaking a bit.


I just assumed it was him from some speech.  It sounds like him.  He was good with sound bites before we recorded sound bites.
 
Displayed 50 of 549 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report